Barnard v Ras (23443/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1053 (20 December 2016)

Barnard v Ras (23443/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1053 (20 December 2016)

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dog was provoked by the child. The evidence of Ms Baloyi, who witnessed the incident, was accepted as credible and consistent, and her denial of provocation was preferred over the defendant's version, which was found to be embellished and unsupported. The requirements for liability under actio de pauperie were satisfied: the defendant owned the dog, it was a domesticated animal, the child was lawfully present, and the dog acted contra naturam suam by biting the child without provocation. The defendant's alternative explanations and challenges to the credibility of the plaintiff's witnesses were rejected....

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1053
Parties
Plaintiff: M Barnard; Defendant: M N Ras
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Case Number
23443/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim under actio de pauperie succeeds; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages.
Judges
J W Louw
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Liability for Domesticated Animals, Burden of Proof, Provocation Defence
Delict Civil Procedure Actio De Pauperie Liability for Domesticated Animals Burden of Proof Provocation Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M Barnard

Plaintiff

M N Ras

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's dog acted contra naturam suam in biting the minor child.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove provocation by the child.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for liability under actio de pauperie are met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dog was provoked by the child. The evidence of Ms Baloyi, who witnessed the incident, was accepted as credible and consistent, and her denial of provocation was preferred over the defendant's version, which was found to be embellished and unsupported. The requirements for liability under actio de pauperie were satisfied: the defendant owned the dog, it was a domesticated animal, the child was lawfully present, and the dog acted contra naturam suam by biting the child without provocation. The defendant's alternative explanations and challenges to the credibility of the plaintiff's witnesses were rejected....

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim under actio de pauperie succeeds; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff and minor child Eli Barnard's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.